> > > In an IETF that believes the potential recursion of URNs and > > > NAPTR records is reasonable, it is really hard for me to get > > > excited about that one possible extra lookup. YMMD, of course. > > I can't get excited about this either. > > > Doug's issue, which sparked off this latest debate, would > > be addressed by codifying "MX 0 .". This would allow hosts > > to say that do not accept email and any email (MAIL FROM) > > claiming to come from such a domain to be dropped in the > > SMTP session. > > OTOH, I think standardizing this convention makes all sorts of sense, but > not, of course, in 2821bis. Why not in 2821bis? Is 2821bis really that time critical? > Ned -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf